The 5-member hearings panel, chaired by Greg Hill, found the marina proposal was overall consistent with all relevant statutory policy provisions and that its adverse environmental effects were fully addressed and either minor or appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Developer Tony Mair said: “The hearing heard from people both in support and in opposition to the marina. But I believe the decision we made earlier this year to change the design from rock breakwaters to floating attenuators helped to reduce any concerns of environmental impact at the site.

“In my 35 years of marina development, I have never seen a more appropriate site. The water is deep, avoiding the need for dredging, and the coastline is already modified. The design is also unique – like Waiheke – with all structures, including the carpark, marina office, community building, breakwaters & marina fingers floating. These structures, to be manufactured by world-renowned company SF Marinas in Sweden, will all be towed into place, mitigating a lot of construction noise & onshore disturbance.”
Mr Mair expects construction to take 18 months.

The failed applicant for a marina at Matiatia on Waiheke Island, Waiheke Marinas Ltd, went into liquidation on 6 January, but the appointment of John Whittfield as liquidator still hadn’t made it on to the Companies Office online file 6 days later.

Graham Guthrie, who drove the 5-year marina battle that ended in rejection in December, is the company’s sole director & shareholder.

The company proposed a 160-berth marina in 2011, immediately north of the wharf in the northern corner of Matiatia Bay. In December 2014, the marina proposal was reduced to 112 berths and other elements were reshaped. The parking element was reduced from 55 to 39 spaces last year.

The application was referred directly to the Environment Court, bypassing the Auckland Council hearing process, and the hearing began before Principal Environment Judge Laurie Newhook & commissioners Anne Leijnen & Russell Howie in October 2014.

The Environment Court has refused consent for the proposed Matiatia marina at Waiheke Island.

The court has also taken the unusual step of writing a foreword to its decision, asking the many people involved in the battle for & against the development to consider a wider picture.

In the conclusion to the decision, Principal Environment Judge Laurie Newhook wrote: “We must record that the applicant has striven to tailor its draft conditions of consent to mitigate effects as far as possible and address the many concerns of parties opposing; but in a way that huge effort has ironically illustrated the difficulties of mitigating large structures on water and on or near the foreshore and ultimately the inappropriateness of the proposal.”

The original application was for 160 berths, 17 pile moorings, and 55 car parking spaces. Last December, the marina proposal was reduced to 112 berths and other elements were reshaped. The parking element was reduced to 39 spaces this year.

Barfoot & Thompson Commercial agents have sold a retail property with 6 tenants in the Owairaka shopping centre, but a vacant commercial property on Waiheke Island, taken to auction on Wednesday, was passed in.

Hauraki Gulf islands

Waiheke Island, Ostend

28 Erua Rd:Features: 809m² corner site zoned commercial 5, current layout has 4 separate but interlinked work bays, each with its own roller door accessOutcome: passed in at $460,000Agent: Grant Kavali

Published 3 June 2015, updated 4 June
As often occurs, membership of one hearing panel appointed on Tuesday had an immediate change.

The panel to hear the Takapuna application for a marine activity hub had Lisa Whyte (Hibiscus Bays) named as local board member on the panel, however she declined the role. No replacement has been named yet.

Committee chair Linda Cooper told me & Ms Whyte in an email today: “It seems that a reporter who was at the meeting has legitimately posted this on social media before our hearings staff were able to confirm availability in person with the commissioners. It is very common for proposed commissioners to be unavailable or occasionally have a conflict therefore frequently I am asked to approve an alternate commissioner. This means resolutions on the day are sometimes not accurate by the time the hearing occurs.”

Almost like an accident, except I was sitting at the media table in plain view at an open meeting. It used to be normal for council staff to ensure before the meeting that proposed commissioners were going to be available for a hearing – in which case they also learned of conflicts.

Auckland Council’s hearings committee appointed commissioners on Tuesday to hear 5 resource consent applications, including the council application to place a public artwork on Queens Wharf and the proposal to establish a boating hub on the Takapuna camping ground.

The committee also:

designated 12 independent hearing commissioners as duty commissioners

resolved to recruit more commissioners, and

began a review of the process for determining demolition resource consent applications in the isthmus residential 1 zone.

Remuera, 14 Rangitoto Avenue & 19 Ara St, application by BeGroup NZ Ltd for retirement village in 3 wings of 1-3 storeys containing 27 independent living units, 68 aged-care suites, basement parking, on the former Rawhiti Bowling Club site: Robert Blakey to decide on notification and, if notified, to hear the application along with Pamela Peters, Rebecca Skidmore & local board member Graeme Easte (from Albert-Eden)

Waiheke Island, Sandy Bay, 92 Coromandel Rd, application for resource consent for a single-storey house straddling a wetland area: Barry Kaye to decide on notification and, if notified, to hear the application along with Bill Kapea

The list of duty commissioners includes 3 who are new to that role – Richard Blakey, Robert Scott & Dave Serjeant.

Council resolutions team manager Rob Andrews said the council reduced its pool of hearing commissioners from 65 to 49 a year ago and there was now a need to supplement the pool in certain skill areas.

Along with changing the faces on hearing panels, the council has produced a performance development framework for commissioners, including reviews of performance, supporting development and dealing with under-performance.

The Environment Court has rejected a late change to the proposal for a marina at Waiheke Island, saying it’s taken the application out of its jurisdiction.

Waiheke Marinas Ltd (Graham Guthrie, Church Bay) had its application to construct a 160-berth marina immediately north of Matiatia Wharf, within the northern corner of Matiatia Bay, referred directly to the court, bypassing the council consent hearing process.

However, towards the end of the hearing last year the company turned from its proposal to reclaim an area for parking and looked at providing parking on an adjoining site.

Principal Environment Judge Laurie Newhook said in yesterday’s decision that, during conferencing after Waiheke Marinas asked to withdraw its application for foreshore parking, the court also suggested the company might “want to think carefully about the shape & size of the marina as well”.

On 3 November, Waiheke Marinas advised the court it wished to proceed with an amended application, which it lodged on 15 December. The marina would be reduced and the parking removed.

On 30 January, the leading opponent, Direction Matiatia Inc, asked the court to rule that the amended application was out of scope and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the court to consider further, because it differed substantially from the notified application.

In particular, the traffic-related aspects or impacts of the amended proposal differed in scale, intensity & character.

The court has given Waiheke Marinas 7 days to advise how it wishes to proceed.

The works include the construction of 5 floating piers within the marina, a 150m-long wave attenuator west of the marina, establishment of a floating marina administration office, dredging of the seabed to create a marina basin and a 3020m² reclamation to provide the parking area.

Auckland Council has reversed its position on Waiheke Marinas Ltd’s application for a 160-berth marina at Matiatia, from the original recommendation to decline it to a revised position of qualified support.

The turnaround has come largely through the Environment Court caucusing process following direct referral of the application, bypassing the council’s own consent hearings process.

The council indicated a possible change of position in June, when the senior council planner on the application, Nicole Bremner, filed the first draft of her evidence in chief. Ms Bremner has since left the council. Counsel Matthew Allan told the court on Friday her evidence had changed after she’d read the evidence of the applicant & Auckland Transport.

The direct referral process puts the council in the position of a court assistant, and Mr Allan provided what the council saw as an objective assessment of the application & environmental effects. He said Ms Bremner’s evidence had 12 specialist reports attached to it.

The hearing began in the Environment Court’s main downtown Auckland courtroom last Monday, with opening submissions by Richard Brabant for the applicant, followed by cross-examination of witnesses in support.

The council presented its submissions on Friday and the court moved to Waiheke today for the second week of hearing, including the completion of the council case. The courts hearing panel – Principal Judge Laurie Newhook with commissioners Anne Leijnen & Russell Howie – will conduct a second site visit tomorrow then hear cultural evidence on the marae on Wednesday and other island witnesses on Thursday-Friday.

Direction Matiatia counsel will deliver their submissions to start the third week of the hearing, back on the mainland.

Waiheke Marinas has applied for resource consent for a 160-berth marina plus 55-space carpark. The marina berths would displace the Matiatia Bay northern mooring area, providing 3 times as many berths. The company also amended its parking application in April, offering a deck on piles alternative to reclamation, covering the same footprint.

Mr Brabant said the marina responded to an identifiable demand in a more sheltered & secure mooring environment than any of the existing mooring areas could provide, along with the advantages of being beside the ferry terminal and with direct access to public & private transport facilities.

Berth prices haven’t been set yet, but marine industry consultant Phil Wardale, who said he was the intended operator and gave evidence last week, told the court berths would be expensive, partly because the marina would be small: “If the mooring is $2000 [figures of $2-4000/mooring at Matiatia were given], this is not a $20,000 berth. For the smaller berths, it is $100,000-plus. A 14m berth at Orakei marina is transferring at the moment in the order of $150,000.”

The original council report on the application identified 4 aspects where effects might be more than minor – traffic (if marina traffic had no time restriction), localised visual & amenity effects, copper accumulation on the ecology & water within the inner bay and noise for nearby residents.

However, Ms Bremner said she didn’t have enough information relating to effects on cultural & spiritual values of Maori to determine the degree of those effects.

Mr Allan said in his opening submissions the caucusing process had been particularly useful: “In a number of areas, agreement has been reached among the experts that the effects will be minor lr less than minor in nature, with no areas of disagreement.

One question which Mr Brabant raised was antifouling for boat hulls. Mr Brabant said the consent shouldn’t carry a condition requiring the marina operator to control discharge of antifouling contaminants from boats into the water. However, Mr Wardale accepted in cross-examination that antifouling measures could be addressed through berth holder contracts.

Mr Allan said Mr Brabant’s point was “unduly technical” and, if the court accepted it, would limit the Resource Management Act’s ability to address an acknowledged potential adverse effect on the quality of the environment.

On the positive side the marina applicant, Mr Bremner identified 10 positive effects of the proposal, and the counbcil’s own coastal plan generally acknowledged some positive effects of marina, such as enhancing amenity for boat users, concentrating vessels & associated effects into defined areas and providing for a more efficient use of harbour space.

Barring successful argument from opponents, the council has proposed a single set of conditions if the court accepts the marina application, following the process from preconstruction through to post-construction management. The applicant preferred 3 separate consents, each with its own conditions, but Mr Allan said this would create unnecessary duplication.

About Bob Dey Property

The Bob Dey Property website is primarily about commercial & development property in Auckland, policies & strategies that impact on the sector, listed property securities and wider economic influences. It examines infrastructure, access & urban design issues, and presents ideas from around the world. The emphasis is on appropriate depth & context.